ESBD_File_349368_Q&A.docx
DOCX document 29 KB Posted
- Attached to
- UHV Help Desk Ticketing Software
- Solicitation number
- 765-24-0018
- Issued by
- Victoria County, Texas
About this file
This document is an addendum to Request for Proposal (RFP) 765-24-0018 issued by the University of Houston-Victoria (UHV). The RFP is seeking proposals for a help desk ticketing software system that will allow for the easy creation and management of requests, as well as reporting tools and a knowledge base to improve quality and operational efficiency.
The addendum addresses several clarification questions related to the RFP, including the acceptability of respondents with TXRamp Provisional Certification, the use of HUB vendors for subcontracting, the desired level of university involvement in the product configuration steps, user login requirements, budget information, data migration, integration requirements, and accessibility compliance. The RFP also indicates that the university anticipates contract signing and purchase order processes to be completed between mid-July and mid-September, with actual implementation starting around mid-September.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
ADDEMDUM 1
RFP 765-24-0018 Clarification Questions
1. “Ticket System Vendor” has currently secured TXRamp Provisional Certification status. Please confirm whether RFP responses from respondents with this level of TXRamp Certification will be considered.
a. Yes, but UHV reserves the right to ask about expiration dates on current provisional status and/or long-range plans regarding TXRamp certification.
2. Is “HUB Vendor” an acceptable HUB to leverage for subcontracting purposes as a part of our RFP Response.
a. Yes
3. When it comes to product implementations, “Ticket System Vendor” and “Implementation vendor” offer a variety of implementation approaches, from 100% customer-led implementations to 100% “Ticket System Vendor”/“Implementation vendor” -led implementations, with options in between. Directionally speaking, what is the university's desired level of involvement in the actual product configuration steps during the implementation phase?
a. Please provide multiple line-item pricing for any options you want UHV to consider.
b. The actual implementation plan will be negotiated in the final phases of the RFP process.
4. 30 Full Time IT employees (FTE) and 30 Part Time employees (temporary or student worker positions).
How many hours will they be logging in per day or per month? What is the percentage of each part time employee login in per day per month?
a. 30 FTE Full Time assume 40 hours per week with daily login.
b. 30 Part Time employees assume 20 hours per week with daily login.
5. Does the University have a budget that has been approved that can be conveyed?
a. Yes, we have approved funding, but the amount will not be conveyed. Please provide the best pricing.
6. Is Data required to be migrated from the old system?
a. No data will be migrated from the old/incumbent system.
7. Do you envision a migration from a current tool for work items?
a. No data will be migrated from the old/incumbent system.
8. What is the current user authentication system (Azure AD, LDAP, etc.)?
a. Azure AD for SSO
9. What are the restrictions for using near-shore resources?
a. Use language from the restricted technology, TX RAMP section of the RFP.
10. Does the organization use any Atlassian products?
a. No
11. What knowledge base and/or document management solutions do you expect to integrate with?
a. A Knowledge Base solution should be part of the proposal. UHV is not seeking implementation or integration with incumbent knowledge-based system.
12. How many people need access to edit and/or respond to tickets?
a. Product solution to include licensing pricing line items for the following:
i. 30 Full Time IT employees (FTE)
ii. 30 Part Time employees (temporary or student worker positions).
iii. Both groups will create/edit/route/close out tickets.
iv. Both groups need full access to the product tools and services to complete job duties.
13. Will there be any integration with the existing Asset Management System?
a. There is no IT Asset Management System.
14. Is asset management being evaluated alongside this RFP?
a. Yes, per section 6 of the posted RFP. IT Asset Management or CMDB is listed as preferred.
i. (Preferred) Product offers native or 3rd party CMDB integration for future expansion.
ii. (Optional) Interoperability to assign/view/track tickets by asset and vice versa.
iii. (Optional) Track warranty and purchase information for the asset.
iv. (Optional) Discovery tool to surface assets connected to network.
15. In the RFP it specifically states that USPS is not to be used for submitting bids. We assume FedEx will be acceptable. Please advise if it is not.
a. FedEx is acceptable.
16. Our software isn't currently TX-RAMP compliant, however this is something we are working on but due to the amount of work required for this we aren't expecting this to be completed until the second half of 2025. Are we still able to respond?
a. Only solution/products that met the requirements of TX-RAMP will be considered. Please refer to section 6 in the Compliance portion (page 18) for additional details.
17. You are asking for a VPAT. Is a HECVAT sufficient in place of the VPAT?
a. No. Our intent with the VPAT is to gage compliance with Texas Administrative Code, Chapters 213 and 203.70 for accessibility. However, the RFP states (4.6) that you can “provide a similarly formatted document as the VPAT attesting to the EIR’s accessible features and capabilities". HECVAT is a risk assessment tool for cybersecurity purposes.
18. What are you currently using today and how many licenses do you own (named or concurrent)?
a. The incumbent product is Microsoft Service Manager.
b. Related to named or concurrent licensing. Ensure that your proposal satisfies the requirements from page 18 or below. Concurrent models should assume 30 FTE and 15 Part Time employees in the environment at the same time.
c. Product solution to include licensing pricing line items for the following:
i. 30 Full Time IT employees (FTE)
ii. 30 Part Time employees (temporary or student worker positions).
iii. Both groups will create/edit/route/close out tickets.
iv. Both groups need full access to the product tools and services to complete job duties.
19. What integrations do you currently have (TEAMS, AD, SSO, etc)?
a. Teams – No
b. AD/SSO – Microsoft Azure AD
20. Do you have a preferred go-live date?
a. We anticipate contract signing and purchase order processes to be completed between mid-July and mid-September, with actual implementation starting around mid-September.
21. Is your preference to have the vendor deliver implementation remotely or on-site?
a. Please provide line item pricing for both options.
22. Please confirm the scope of services. Our assumption based on the RFP is Incident, Knowledge and CMDB, plus end users will access a Self-Service portal. Are there any other process (i.e., Problem, Change SLA, SR, Mobile, etc).
a. Please refer to the Ticket System Requirements outlined on pages 19-20
b. Incident – in scope
c. Knowledge – in scope
d. CMDB – optional
e. Self-Service Portal - in scope
f. Problem - in scope
g. Change management - in scope
h. Mobile/smart – in scope
i. Service Request (SR) – optional/ out of scope
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .